Hacker News Reader

Comment by ouid | Hacker News Reader

No, the plan is to force poor people into becoming pedestrians, to lower the burden of traffic for the wealthy.

I think most people would be happier if they could drive less and had fewer cars to contend with while walking.

Forcing people to be pedestrians would be likely a significant improvement for their health and quality of life.

As an American in a major city, the alternative sucks. I'm forced to be a driver, car costs eat a significant portion of my income, my neighborhood doesn't even have sidewalks between the residences and shops (which are across a highway that has a cross walk with no sidewalk leading up to it), and I end up having to drive at least 5 hours every week just to work and get my kids to and from school. This increases pollution in my city and comes with a regular risk of injury and death from a car accident, which is one of the leading causes of preventable death.

I'd rather be forced to be a pedestrian than a driver. Having the choice would really be great.

There are a ton of pedestrian friendly cities in the US. Is it less viable/desirable to move to a new town than it is to force poor people back onto the bus?

There really aren't, proportionally. Most of the cities are not reasonable to live in without owning a car.

And I'd rather if the bus was an option at all. The bus is expensive and unreliable in most US cities. Getting somewhere by car that takes 20 minutes can take hours by bus due to scheduling. This is a stark contrast to London, which has an actual public transit system.

Maybe I'm biased by living in Colorado Springs, where it might be particularly bad, but cities with sprawling suburbs are usually terrible for living without a car, and the US has tons of suburbs.

proportionally, sure, but there are a lot of cities you can live without owning a car in the united states. Just about every metropolitan area and nearly any city over 150k people on the west coast seem to be navigable by at most a bike.

Point not without merit, but I’d say there are quite few pedestrian-friendly places in this country unless your standards for that are very low. Most pedestrian-friendly areas might be limited to a couple blocks downtown with a little or no decent non-luxury housing available.

I think adding more pedestrian-friendly places, or at least stopping building ones that are outright hostile to everyone but car-drivers, is very important.

> No, the plan is to force poor people into becoming pedestrians,

Poor people in London already mostly do not own cars. And also they disproportionately suffer the negative effects of pollution from cars. (1)

If by "pedestrians" you mean people who get around on foot, on bicycles, on busses, on London Underground trains, on overground trains, in taxis, Minicabs and Ubers then sure, they are "pedestrians" .

In my case, if I needed a car I could arrange to buy one, but where would I put it, how would I secure it and what would I do with it? It would be nothing than an expressive source of hassle and worry. It's cheaper and less hassle to use busses to commute, cabs or ubers when I need to travel other short distances, rental cars a couple of times per year.

Groceries? There's a small shop in walking distance that way, and others in walking distance the other way, and a similar near the office, but the main shopping _comes to me_ not vice versa.

1) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/17/poorest-...

Poor people in London are already pedestrians.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com